Jump to content

The Crown Jewels


antony1969

Recommended Posts

antony1969 - 2012-08-23 12:17 PM

. What's he done wrong ?

 

.

 

 

 

I haven't read the details but as far as I can see he's done nothing wrong at all - sounds like he was having a bl**dy good time -and good luck to him.

 

Unfortunately it seems that some of the people he mixes with are low-lifes, who let him down. I just hope he knows who they are.

 

 

;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the one hand I think, well he's a single 'lad' so what, then I see he's 27 not so young actualy, so it seems he will become the 'typical' royal second son, but I guess it's like father like son, all the same these Hewitt's.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Peter James
I thought it was more serious that he couldn't control his temper without physically attacking a photographer carrying out his lawful duty in a public street. But it makes no difference. They can't be sacked whatever they do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman

Shame on the Sun ......................I'm not surprised though, and Murdoch's rag even has the gall to state quote "press freedom" *-)...........

 

What a load of cobblers >:-(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just seen it on breakfast news, I think Murdock has seriously lost the plot, "The pictures you must see", no thanks. Any photo's taken in a 'private' space should not, by law, be published without consent unless they are in public interest. What public interest is served by publishing the photo's? We've all seen the story on TV or in papers, those that wish can find the photo's on the net, so there is no public interest being served.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter James - 2012-08-23 11:24 PM

 

I thought it was more serious that he couldn't control his temper without physically attacking a photographer carrying out his lawful duty in a public street. But it makes no difference. They can't be sacked whatever they do.

 

Sacked for what ? having a beer and a laugh in private with his mates

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
Just been to our local Co op for some bits and pieces, picked up the local paper.....................It was nice to see a big pile of Sun papers ;-)..........It appears no one around here are buying the Sun today B-)...........serve the Murdoch's right if the Sun went down the pan as well *-)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
antony1969 - 2012-08-24 12:51 PM

 

Neither for or against the Murdoch's but I don't think they have done much wrong

 

Giving politicians a good kicking is one thing ;-) ...............the who's who of who's screwing who does nothing but provide titillation to the masses *-)..................

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pelmetman - 2012-08-24 6:35 PM

 

antony1969 - 2012-08-24 12:51 PM

 

Neither for or against the Murdoch's but I don't think they have done much wrong

 

Giving politicians a good kicking is one thing ;-) ...............the who's who of who's screwing who does nothing but provide titillation to the masses *-)..................

 

Its obviously what the masses want Dave , papers and TV the Murdoch's own the most popular even after all the bad publicity they've had .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
antony1969 - 2012-08-24 6:47 PM

 

pelmetman - 2012-08-24 6:35 PM

 

antony1969 - 2012-08-24 12:51 PM

 

Neither for or against the Murdoch's but I don't think they have done much wrong

 

Giving politicians a good kicking is one thing ;-) ...............the who's who of who's screwing who does nothing but provide titillation to the masses *-)..................

 

Its obviously what the masses want Dave , papers and TV the Murdoch's own the most popular even after all the bad publicity they've had .

 

I fear you maybe right *-)....................and I thought I was shallow ;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pelmetman - 2012-08-24 8:14 AM

 

Shame on the Sun ......................I'm not surprised though, and Murdoch's rag even has the gall to state quote "press freedom" *-)...........

 

What a load of cobblers >:-(

So why is it o/k that millions have seen them on the net, but the sun cannot publish pictures that are already in the public domain?. Get real Dave.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman
peter - 2012-08-24 10:19 PM

 

pelmetman - 2012-08-24 8:14 AM

 

Shame on the Sun ......................I'm not surprised though, and Murdoch's rag even has the gall to state quote "press freedom" *-)...........

 

What a load of cobblers >:-(

So why is it o/k that millions have seen them on the net, but the sun cannot publish pictures that are already in the public domain?. Get real Dave.

 

Well if you wish to follow the law of the lemming Peter ;-)..................I'll confess to being a royalist, but I fail to see how publishing pictures of someone in the buff is in the "Public Interest" :-S...............I'm thinking of suing the Sun for making me feel inferior :D.................

 

 

I want my todger published as well (lol) (lol)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

pelmetman - 2012-08-24 10:32 PM

 

peter - 2012-08-24 10:19 PM

 

pelmetman - 2012-08-24 8:14 AM

 

Shame on the Sun ......................I'm not surprised though, and Murdoch's rag even has the gall to state quote "press freedom" *-)...........

 

What a load of cobblers >:-(

So why is it o/k that millions have seen them on the net, but the sun cannot publish pictures that are already in the public domain?. Get real Dave.

 

Well if you wish to follow the law of the lemming Peter ;-)..................I'll confess to being a royalist, but I fail to see how publishing pictures of someone in the buff is in the "Public Interest" :-S...............I'm thinking of suing the Sun for making me feel inferior :D.................

 

 

I want my todger published as well (lol) (lol)

 

Go for it Dave ! start a trend on here and splash em on the forum , you and Sue in the motorhome playing strip draughts . Nice .

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Peter James

I have no wish to see the photos in the Sun, but I think they are actually doing the Royal Family a favor by publishing them.

How would it look to the rest of the world who have already seen the photos, if the Unelected Royal family are seen to dictate to the British Press what they can print?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Peter James
antony1969 - 2012-08-24 12:17 PM

 

Peter James - 2012-08-23 11:24 PM

 

I thought it was more serious that he couldn't control his temper without physically attacking a photographer carrying out his lawful duty in a public street. But it makes no difference. They can't be sacked whatever they do.

 

Sacked for what ? having a beer and a laugh in private with his mates

 

Some mates if they do that to him. Ignoring all his training and his minders he puts himself in that situation. But perhaps its not as offensive as his parading around in a Nazi Uniform.

But I never suggested he should be sacked for that. I said being unable to control his temper without physically attacking a photographer in a public street.

 

We are forced to pay these people to represent us, plus all their hangers on, plus all their descendants, plus all their descendants hangers on, whatever they turn out to be like, and we have no way of getting rid of them.

 

Of course the rest of the world may find it entertaining, But as one American said 'The thing we like most about Your Royal Family is that they are yours and not ours. The biggest celebration in the American Calender is the Aniversary of the day they cast them off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peter James - 2012-08-25 8:50 AM

 

antony1969 - 2012-08-24 12:17 PM

 

Peter James - 2012-08-23 11:24 PM

 

I thought it was more serious that he couldn't control his temper without physically attacking a photographer carrying out his lawful duty in a public street. But it makes no difference. They can't be sacked whatever they do.

 

Sacked for what ? having a beer and a laugh in private with his mates

 

Some mates if they do that to him. Ignoring all his training and his minders he puts himself in that situation. But perhaps its not as offensive as his parading around in a Nazi Uniform.

But I never suggested he should be sacked for that. I said being unable to control his temper without physically attacking a photographer in a public street.

 

We are forced to pay these people to represent us, plus all their hangers on, plus all their descendants, plus all their descendants hangers on, whatever they turn out to be like, and we have no way of getting rid of them.

 

Of course the rest of the world may find it entertaining, But as one American said 'The thing we like most about Your Royal Family is that they are yours and not ours. The biggest celebration in the American Calender is the Aniversary of the day they cast them off.

 

Peter , what situation did he put himself in ? . He was in a room with friends having a beer then one of them has decided to sell pics . It's the low life buddy in the wrong here surely and dont be daft most Yanks love the royal family and the history that goes with them because the Yanks have no history .

As for been forced to pay for things us English have been doing that with the Jocks for years and getting very little back .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest pelmetman

Rupert Murdoch has sympathised with Prince Harry in the wake of the royal's naked photograph controversy, urging critics to give him "a break".

It comes after the media mogul's tabloid newspaper The Sun became the first British publication to print the embarrassing images of the prince taken during a party weekend in Las Vegas.

News International owner Mr Murdoch took to his Twitter account to show his support for Harry.

He wrote: "Prince Harry. Give him a break. He may be on the public payroll one way or another, but the public loves him, even to enjoy Las Vegas."

More than 850 complaints have been made to the press watchdog about the naked photographs of the 27-year-old prince frolicking in the nude with an unnamed woman after they were published in Friday's edition of The Sun.

Nearly all are about invasion of privacy and are to be investigated in due course.

It has been reported that Mr Murdoch, 81, ordered newspaper bosses to publish the images because he wanted to fire a warning shot at Lord Justice Leveson, the man leading the inquiry into press standards in the wake of the phone hacking scandal. News International has refused to comment on the speculation.

The Murdoch-owned tabloid argued that printing the images was in the public interest and a "crucial" test of the country's free press.

TMZ, the celebrity gossip website which first published the pictures, said they were taken last Friday after Harry and his entourage met some women in a hotel bar and invited them up to the royal's suite.

The group played a stripping game and someone in the party is thought to have captured the images of the naked prince on a camera phone.

 

What a hypocrite Murdoch is *-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

......well. you've got to understand that as far as Harry is concerned, there are mitigating circumstances:

 

 

....the product of a broken home, brought up on a series of estates, never knew his real father, family living off taxpayer-funded benefits, and now spending the majority of his life in an institution......

 

;-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...